Responses 000 (2010-2011)

After a quick first look at yesterday's list of questions, my intuitive response was that questions 4 and 5 are far too general; each of them is a major chunk of epistemology, and no particular focus is provided. Question 2 looks as if you'd have to define 'expert' first, and since that's not susceptible to a useful definition in this context, I wouldn't touch it.

Questions 1, 3, and 7 are traditional, with the advantage that they are straightforward comparisons. Q1 goes so far as to give you one of the knowledge domains to be compared, so it's marginally easier.

Question 6 is a variant of the 'there are no absolute truths' trick. Since you can't say the statement is true, you have to say it is false. Then you discuss why it is false, which is a waste of time to me, since there really isn't much of a counterclaim.

Questions 8 and 9 limit the discussion to specific domains of knowledge. However, they are also kind enough to tell you what to discuss, which makes them good candidates. Don't overstretch on either, though; it's possible to read these questions in such a way that you come up with too many answers or no answer at all.

Left to my own devices, I'd answer Q10. It is easily structured, yet complex enough to provide lots of good points and examples. Ah well, if anyone remembers my lectures, I used to do this one implicitly all the time!

And so, those are my initial responses in 2009 for questions to be answered by 2010-2011. Enjoy!